994 N.E.2d 1177
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Medley, a Rockville prisoner, challenges the DOC's three-strikes non-contact visitation policy as applied to her.
- Policy allows non-contact visitation for various offenses; Medley received six-month and then one-year restrictions, expiring March 13, 2012.
- She grievances the restrictions; temporarily transferred to IWP Jan–May 2011; later filed a May 7, 2012 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming multiple DOC officials.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(B)(6); Medley appeals seeking statutory, state constitutional, and federal constitutional relief.
- The court holds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over statutory claims under Indiana Code §§ 11-11-5-4 and 11-11-3-9 (Blanck precedent).
- Indiana constitutional claims fail; federal due process claims are addressed, with First Amendment retaliation claims recognized against some defendants and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over statutory claims | Medley asserts court can review statutory limits on discipline/visitation. | Blanck precludes judicial review of these statutory claims. | Jurisdiction lacking; claims dismissed. |
| Indiana Constitutional due process and open courts | Three-strikes policy violates due process and open courts. | Due process satisfied via DOC review/grievance procedures; no open-courts violation. | Claims fail; due process/open courts not violated. |
| Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 23 equal protection | Three-strikes policy discriminates against inmates. | Policy facially neutral; no selective treatment proved. | No facial/as-applied constitutional violation. |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation | Restrictions/transfer retaliatory for grievance activity. | Discretion in disciplinary decisions defeats retaliation claim; causation uncertain. | Adequate pleading of retaliation against Stout, Ferguson, Milner, McCullough, and White; claims against Lemmon, Pavese, VanNatta affirmed dismissed; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanck v. Indiana Department of Correction, 829 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. 2005) (prison disciplinary claims not privately actionable; lacks private right of action)
- Doe v. Donahue, 829 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prison visitation policy reviewed; (contextual precedent) Doe cited prior to Blanck)
- Zimmerman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (due process for prison discipline; open courts not required for such actions)
- Kimrey v. Donahue, 861 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (extends Blanck to other prison-regulation challenges)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (liberty interests in prison disciplinary actions limited; due process not always implicated)
- Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (first amendment rights restricted in prison context; verification of visitation rights)
- Ratliff v. Cohn, 693 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 1998) (judicial review limitations on prison discipline claims; private rights not implied)
- Henry v. Dep’t of Corr., 131 Fed. Appx. 847 (3d Cir. 2005) (no due process in absence of liberty interests in visitation)